Josh Fox, the director of the Academy Award-nominated documentary Gasland, was arrested by Capitol Hill police today as he and his crew of journalists attempted to film a public hearing on a controversial natural gas issue.

House Republican leadership directed Capitol Hill police to detain the film crew. Approximately 16 officers entered the room. Apparently there were objections to Fox and the crew not having proper credentials (which, if given the opportunity, could have been easily obtained).

Zach Carter at Huffington Post has a detailed account, which he has been updating. (Politico also has decent coverage.)

I have received dozens of tweets and emails about this (and the Huffington Post article in particular) and I would like to caution readers against attributing these events to any conspiratorial efforts at keeping the hearing secret. Fracking is a nasty practice that involves nasty corporate interests, and Homeland Security has been spying on screenings of Gasland, but I don’t think that’s why this happened. I don’t suspect this is about being pro-fracking or anti-environmentalist.

I think the reality is far less sexy: politicians like to think they have a monopoly on power, and don’t like that power challenged.

In other words, they behaved irrationally because they are bullies and thugs. I don’t mean that as mere name calling. Events like this need to be understood in the context of the bigger assault on journalists. (Something I had personal experiences with recently).

There’s a reason that the United States fell 27 places to #47 in Reporters Without Borders’ Press Freedom Index.

I doubt this will deter Fox and his crew. But maybe it will bump up sales of the Gasland DVD?

UPDATE: Mat McDermott at Treehugger raises similar points in his great post.

When I was in Portland, Oregon, I sat down with the nice folks at Because We Must to film a video interview about my work, and some of the lessons learned from the corporate-led war on dissent as “terrorism.”

We filmed it in this beautiful park, and our discussion of a pretty dark topic was interrupted at one point by bald eagles cutting lines through the sky. The three of us all looked at each other after being hit with the same reminder: this is all worth fighting for.

I think this video turned out really well (and I love the Godspeed in the background — that album was on repeat many late nights writing the book). It’s really an honor to me that folks spend their time and energy producing things like this. I don’t think I say this nearly enough, but thank you all for listening to what I have to say.

Interview with Will Potter from Because We Must on Vimeo:

We are are excited to post our interview with our good friend Will Potter. Will runs the very informative blog Green is The New Red and is also the author of the recent book ‘Green Is the New Red: An Insiders Account Of A Social Movement Under Siege’. Will focuses on how the animal rights, and earth liberation movements have been targeted by the Government and labeled as ‘eco-terrorists’ and how dangerous this is for all social justice movements, present and future. After watching the interview, we would love it if you shared it with comrades, friends and family!

Jurist is an online legal news service that has won many awards for its content, and is quite influential in legal circles. It was described by the ABA Journal as one of “the best Web sites by lawyers, for lawyers.” I was invited to contribute a commentary on the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act.

Here’s an excerpt:

A recent undercover investigation into one of the nation’s largest egg producers, Sparboe Farms, documented hens mangled in cage wire, many with open wounds, and chicks having their beaks burned off by workers. This is just one of many investigations by animal welfare advocates that have exposed standard industry practices, created national dialogue about factory farming and in some cases prompted criminal charges. Newly released FBI documents show that the government is less concerned about these abuses and more concerned about the economic loss caused to businesses. The FBI has also been keeping files on factory farm investigators, and recommends prosecuting them as terrorists.

It may come as a shock to most people to learn of potential terrorism charges for investigators who, at worst, have trespassed or rescued a few injured animals. Yet, this is merely the latest chapter of a long-running campaign. I have documented how corporations created the term “eco-terrorism” in the 1980s and then used public relations campaigns, congressional hearings and ambitious court cases to manufacture what the FBI calls the “number one domestic terrorism threat.”

Perhaps the most dangerous tactic employed by corporations has been the manipulation of post-9/11 fears to enact designer terrorism legislation. Foremost among these new laws is the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA). The act was passed in 2006 at the request of the National Association for Biomedical Research, Fur Commission USA, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Wyeth, United Egg Producers, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and many other corporations and business groups that have a financial stake in silencing animal rights activists.

You can read the full commentary, “Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act Threatens Activism,” at Jurist.

Every activist should know sht the FBI says.

I tried to resist. I really did. But when I jokingly posted on the GreenIsTheNewRed Facebook page that I wanted to make a “Sh*t the FBI Says” video, ya’ll went nuts about the idea.

Like the videos that started the trend, it’s pretty goofy. But sadly, it’s all based on statements the FBI has made in court, in the press, or to activists themselves (I’ve heard quite a few of these myself).

So on a serious note…

After you watch the video, please check out this great Know Your Rights booklet.

Thanks to Chris, Greg, Michael, Shannon, Brad and everyone else who helped out in the f-f-freezing cold. Please like this on YouTube or Facebook if you think they should wear the fake mustaches every day.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Here are some of the articles that inspired this video:

* “FBI Looking for Informants to Infiltrate Vegan Potlucks”

* “Eric McDavid Sentenced to 20 Years in Prison as a Terrorist”

* “FBI: “Eco-terrorists” Are Bigger Threat Than Osama bin Laden, Hate Crimes, and Attempts to Assassinate Obama”

* Jordan Halliday prohibited with associating with the “Vegan Straight Edge”

* “Activist Secretly Videotapes FBI Visit”

* “IRS Suicide Pilot Is Not a ‘Terrorist,’ But Environmental Activists Are?”

* “FBI Harasses Sociology Professor Who Has Spoken Against Labeling His Student a ‘Terrorist’”

* “Discussion of Government Surveillance of Activists with Will Potter, Former FBI Agent, ACLU and More”

The Alyona Show discusses Jordan Halliday, and journalists being labeled as "extremist."

I interviewed with The Alyona Show recently about the prosecution of Jordan Halliday, who was sentenced to 10 months in prison for refusing to testify before a grand jury about his political beliefs, and how my own journalism was labeled as “extremist” in the case.

Check out the video and let me know what you think.

PS: Congrats to Alyona Minkovski for being recognized as one of Forbes Magazine’s “30 Under 30″ influential media figures to watch, and for her in-depth interview with C-Span!

Click here to view the embedded video.

I recently wrote about Jordan Halliday, an animal rights activist who was jailed for refusing to name names before a federal grand jury investigating the release of mink from fur farms. Prosecutors urged a harsh prison sentence because Halliday has publicly vowed to resist the political witch hunt.

In the sentencing memorandum, they said that, while awaiting sentencing, Halliday continued to protest, continued to associate with animal rights activists, and continued to urge activists to support him.

And then prosecutors described to the judge what they said is an even more troubling association.

“Of More Serious Concern”

“Of more serious concern is the fact uncovered by the FBI” that Jordan Halliday was mentioned in a photo caption on this website, they said.

The FBI had given prosecutors an article I wrote titled, “BREAKING: FBI Raids Activist House in Utah, Connected to Iowa ALF Investigation.” I covered this story as it happened, and scooped local press. I was able to do this because, as I noted in the article, “I just got off the phone with multiple housemates who were there witnessing the raid, and who were able to read the warrant.” The housemates called me because I have been reporting on the FBI’s attacks on animal rights and environmental activists since 2001. I later updated the blog post with a photo from the scene that credited Jordan Halliday.

To me, this was Journalism 101 — work fast, then flesh out details and add a photo. To the FBI, this quick work was the evidence of a network of extremists. Prosecutors state in the sentencing memo: “The search warrant was sealed, as is typical, with no warning or public knowledge ahead of the time of service. Nonetheless, photograph taken contemporaneous with the execution of the search warrant service has been attributed to the defendant on the animal rights extremist website” GreenIsTheNewRed.com.

The FBI provided federal prosecutors with a blog post from this website.

Guilty By Association

It is not surprising to see a government sentencing memo try to connect a defendant to “extremists.” I’ve covered this in many, many prosecutions. The intention is to use guilt by association to secure additional prison time. For example, prosecutors will say that Joe Defendant is friends with drug dealers, or that Jane Defendant’s family are in a gang.

In this case, the government labels journalism as extremism.

Prosecutors say that since my article mentioned Halliday in a photo caption, it means he placed himself “above the law” and violated an order to have “No association with animal group[s] A.L.F., E.L.F., Vegan Straight Edge (VSE).” [The ALF and ELF are the underground Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front. "Vegan Straight Edge" is a punk lifestyle, not a terrorist group, and I'm having a hard time even typing this explanation without being reminded by these lyrics.]

Packed into that short accusation are two dangerous unstated assumptions:

1. Anyone who takes a photo of law enforcement is associated with those being targeted. Keep in mind that this raid led to no arrests. Yet the government says that merely possessing a photo of it implies criminal association, and is acting “above the law.”
2. Anyone who writes about what the government is doing to animal rights activists is an “animal rights extremist” by extension. This is the most dangerous message being sent by the government. My writing and commentary on civil liberties issues has been featured by NPR, the Los Angeles Times, Mother Jones, and many other of the top media outlets in the country. I have lectured at nearly 100 universities and associations, including Georgetown Law School, Yale Law School, and the House of Democracy and Human Rights in Berlin. My book was awarded a Kirkus Star for “remarkable merit,” and has been praised by Publishers Weekly, Utne, the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, and many others. I say all this hoping to make clear that if my journalism is being labeled “extremist,” if my entire body of professional work can be reduced to extremism because I ask questions about what the government and corporations are doing, then everyone is at risk.

Chilling Free Speech

If there has been one theme running through all of my work, through every blog post and book chapter and speaking event, it is this: fear. Corporations and politicians are using post-9/11 fears of terrorism to push their political agenda. Fear is being manufactured and manipulated by people in power in order to make people think twice about using their rights.

This chilling effect on First Amendment activity is at the core of lawsuit by the Center for Constitutional Rights challenging the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. The vague and overly broad language of the law, and the sweeping attempts of prosecutors to utilize it (such as this grand jury investigation), is unconstitutional not because it has expressly prohibited First Amendment activity, but because it has chilled it.

This is another representation of that constitutional threat, in two ways:

It makes me feel that using my First Amendment rights puts me at risk. Describing journalism as “extremist” in the context of a terrorism investigation is, to put it mildly, unsettling. This isn’t the first time I have learned of surveillance like this. I have previously written about how my writing and speeches have been listed in Counter-Terrorism Unit briefing documents.

More importantly, it makes me feel that using my First Amendment rights puts my sources at risk. When I saw that my work was being used by the FBI and prosecutors against Halliday, it made me sick to my stomach. It’s one thing to see my name in terrorism files, it’s another to see my work being used by prosecutors to punish people I have written about. An old muckraking motto is “comfort the afflicted, afflict the comfortable.” To have my work afflict people who already have the full weight of the U.S. government pressing down upon them goes against everything I believe about this craft.

A Pattern on Behavior

You might be asking: Was the government really trying to send these messages? Or was this a case of bad FBI intelligence and prosecutors who don’t “get it”? (To steal a line from The Daily Show, “Are they evil, or stupid?”)

I don’t know the answer to that question. But I know government officials have done this before. When I visited Daniel McGowan in the Communications Management Unit, prison officials did not threaten me. They did not expressly prohibit me from writing about the experimental prison units. Instead, they told McGowan that if I wrote about the visit he would be punished for my words.

I also know that prosecutors said Jordan Halliday needs to be punished for his “stardom,” so “defendant’s supporters are not emboldened to follow the defendant’s contemptuous ways.” Through these and many other examples, it’s clear that the government is openly trying to send a message.

And so, as I edit this, about to hit “publish,” I keep hesitating. Will writing about this amplify that message of fear? Everything I do depends on the trust I have built with countless activists and their friends and families. What if this makes people afraid to be mentioned on this website?

The mere fact that I have to ask myself those questions is a testament to how much we have lost in the name of fighting “terrorism.”

This pattern of conduct by the FBI and federal prosecutors is nothing less than an attack on the First Amendment, and an attack on journalism. It is an attempt to foster distrust between author and source, and it is an attempt to shake the confidence that one can report freely and without retribution, both of which are essential to any meaningful expression of journalism in a democracy.

Jordan Halliday and a supporter outside the courthouse.

Utah animal rights activist Jordan Halliday has begun a 10-month prison sentence for refusing to testify before a federal grand jury about his political beliefs and political associations. It is believed to be the first time in two decades, and only the third time in U.S. history, that someone has been imprisoned for criminal contempt of court after already serving prison time for civil contempt–all because of his principled stand against what activists call a political witch hunt.

The Utah grand jury was convened in 2009 to investigate the release of mink from Utah fur farms by the Animal Liberation Front. Halliday refused to cooperate because grand juries have historically been used against social movements (as they are now being used against antiwar activists in the Midwest) in fishing expeditions.

When you walk into a grand jury, you check your rights at the door. You have to answer questions about your politics and your friends. You don’t have the right to remain silent. If you refuse to cooperate and “name names,” you can be sent to jail. That’s what happened to Halliday.

But the story of how and why he was targeted gets even more surprising.

Corporate Leads

According to a government memo, “there is evidence that the defendant [Halliday] notified news sources of the McMullin mink farm attack on the day of the attack, and even before police officers knew of the significance of the crime.” This would seem like a good reason to question him.

However, it’s a lie.

FBI file shows emails from Fur Commission.

On August 20, 2009, someone submitted an anonymous message to KUTV.com about the fur farm raid. The only details provided on the contact form were a first name of “Jordan” and an email “jo~dan@aol.com.” The message said the Animal Liberation Front released 300 mink from McMullin mink farm and that they “look a lot happier.”

KUTV forwarded the message to Lindsey McMullin, the farm owner. McMullin forwarded the email to Teresa Platt of Fur Commission USA, an industry group. Platt forwarded the email to the FBI. [Here is a section of the FBI file with the emails.]

This is the basis for the FBI’s obsession with Halliday: an anonymous email attributed to “Jordan” that they received from a corporate front group, and the fact that Jordan Halliday is the only animal rights “Jordan” they could find (the other Jordans they spoke with were not activists, prosecutors said).

Refusal to Cooperate

Halliday maintains he has no knowledge of these crimes, and points out that anyone claiming responsibility for a crime would not use their real name (plus jo~dan@aol.com is not even a valid address). Instead, he argues that he has been targeted because of his protesting and writing, and that this is a broader attack on the animal rights and environmental movements.

Halliday’s attorney said in a memorandum:

… Jordan has resisted questioning involving his membership status and/or leadership position in various organizations of political and social nature involved in advocating for animal protections. He has been questioned about whether he organized a rally in front of the federal courthouse, and if he knows who did organize such rally, or if it were an organization to which he belongs that planned the rally. He has been asked about his family members, and whether one is married to an animal rights activist…[emphasis added]

1-2-3-4-FIFTH

Halliday answered either “no comment” or invoked the Fifth Amendment to all questions asked of him during his grand jury appearances. He answered no questions. His refusal to cooperate with the grand jury resulted in him spending 104 days in jail for civil contempt of court. Before being released, he was informed that the government had indicted him again on the same case, this time on criminal contempt charges.

Upon learning that prosecutors sought a 2 year prison sentence, Halliday pleaded guilty to refusing to answer questions at a federal grand jury. He was sentenced to 10 months in prison. To put this in perspective, William James Viehl and Alex Jason Hall were convicted of two counts of “animal enterprise terrorism” under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act for the Matthews mink farm raid, and sentenced to 21 and 24 months.

Why was Halliday treated so harshly?

One reason is that his “refusal to testify over a long period and his statements about ‘resisting’ the grand jury make his conduct more serious than simply failing to appear as a material witness.”

An example of this “disdainful view of grand juries” is a March 4, 2009 text message sent by Halliday after appearing before the grand jury. According to the government’s sentencing memo, he wrote:

Well, after my dave chapelle … I plead the 5th routine today. I was making some fo [sic] the gj laugh. I was sayin’ like “1-2- 3-4-5th!”. And they asked to see and they asked to see and they asked her to grant me more time as well, because they needed more time. The prosecutor was pissed as fuck.

Prosecutors note that “Dave Chappelle is a popular comedian who performs a comic routine that Halliday claims in the text message to have been mimicking before the grand jury. (Submission Exhibit No. 6.) In context, the video clip illustrates Halliday’s intention to mock the grand jury process…”

Prosecutors also say there were protestors outside the courthouse, and that Halliday said on websites and in the press that he had no intention of cooperating with a grand jury witch hunt. His refusal to cower in fear, his refusal to acquiesce to the government’s bullying, and his willingness to mock those the government were spun by the government as evidence of the need for a higher sentence.

“Stardom”

It’s telling that prosecutors bluntly describe this lack of fear as a threat to the entire grand jury system. “In some sense, the defendant’s contempt has brought a certain stardom within the counterculture animal rights extremist movement,” the sentencing memo says. He has tweeted, blogged, and interviewed about his experiences. He has supporters who have opened Facebook and Tumblr accounts, and protested outside the courthouse.

It is imperative, prosecutors said, that the “sentence defendant receives must not only deter his future criminal conduct, but also send the appropriate message to ensure that, as an unintended consequence of a lenient sentence, the defendant’s supporters are not emboldened to follow the defendant’s contemptuous ways.”

The FBI, the fur industry, and prosecutors are openly trying to send a message.

But what message are you hearing?

The recent article about how the FBI recommended prosecuting video investigators as terrorists went viral, thanks to you all! It’s pretty amazing — more than 16,000 people shared the story on Facebook, and more than 100,000 unique visitors have viewed it on this website. The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (and the Center for Constitutional Rights lawsuit against it is being talked about on many, many websites and forums. So thank you all for sharing this!

One of the best articles I’ve seen is by Dean Kuipers of the Los Angeles Times. Here’s an excerpt:

The documents, which were first published on Will Potter’s website, Green Is the New Red, were issued by the Joint Terrorism Task Force in 2003 in response to an article in an animal rights publication in which Shapiro and two other activists (whose names were redacted from the document), openly claimed responsibility for shooting video and taking animals from a farm…

Potter, who has looked into these state laws in more detail, points out, “There’s no shortage of laws that could be used to prosecute someone who is trespassing or someone who is vandalizing property in the process of an investigation. But these new laws are specifically aimed at mainstream animal rights and environmental groups who investigate abuse, such as the Humane Society, Mercy for Animals and PETA.”

The GreenIsTheNewRed.com article has gotten picked up by conservative websites like Little Green Footballs, liberal sites like Alternet, and everything in between. Readers have overwhelmingly been outraged by this misuse of “terrorism” legislation.

Big Ag, however, feels differently.

Dan Murphy is a public relations consultant for the meat and dairy industries, and a long-time supporter of “eco-terror” legislation like the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. In a column for Dairy Herd, he says the FBI is completely justified in targeted non-violent undercover investigators as terrorists. He goes so far as to compare the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act to hate crimes legislation targeting the KKK:

It’s no different from passing laws authorizing special punishment for so-called “hate crimes.” It’s always been possible to punish those who burn crosses, deface houses or otherwise harass people on the basis of race, religion or sexual orientation. But often, the small fines and minimal jail terms prescribed by trespassing and property damage statutes don’t fit the egregious nature of the offenses. Thus, it’s necessary to identify special circumstances that change what would normally be mere misdemeanors into the more serious crimes that they are.

Murphy has this backwards, of course. The “egregious nature of the offenses” in this situation are not being committed by the activists. They are being committed by corporations. Activists have repeatedly exposed systemic animal welfare violations, and are non-violently documenting these practices to force businesses to change these practices.

It speaks volumes that the meat and dairy industries consider things like this to be less egregious than having their own institutionalized cruelty exposed.

In 2011, we saw two clear, sweeping trends regarding protest movements, and the corporate backlash against them. Before we get to that, though, take a look at the 10 most popular stories of 2011:

10) Tim DeChristopher Sentenced — What’s Next for the Environmental Movement?

9) New Lawsuit Challenges the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act as Unconstitutional

8) Supreme Court Will Not Hear SHAC 7 Case

7) 5 Reasons Why Environmentalists and Animal Activists Should Occupy Wall Street

6) If Sarah Palin Were an Animal Rights Activist, She’d Have Already Been Convicted of “Terrorism”

5) Breaking: 12 Activists Arrested in Spain, Being Charged With “Eco-Terrorism”

4) Minnesota Bill Targets Anyone Who Exposes an “Image or Sound” of Animal Suffering at Factory Farms, Puppy Mills

3) Richmond Cops Mistakenly Hand Over Anti-Protest Guides to Anarchist

2) Senate Approves NDAA Bill that Allows Military to Imprison U.S. Citizens, Without Charge, As “Terrorists”

1) FBI Says Activists Who Investigate Factory Farms Can Be Prosecuted as Terrorist

I created this list according to the number of views each article on this website received. I think some of the stories are more significant than others, but the order really isn’t important.

More important are the trends they reflect.

The first trend is an increasingly aggressive campaign led by corporations against those who effectively threaten profits. I have been writing this blog since 2006, when the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act was being debated. If you had told me then that there would be a campaign in multiple states to criminalize undercover investigations, or that environmentalist Tim DeChristopher would receive two years in prison for civil disobedience, I wouldn’t have believed you. On top of that, the hubris of corporations and politicians is also being codified into law in new ways, such as the National Defense Authorization Act, and these tactics are spreading to other countries.

When you stack things up that way, it’s pretty grim.

But that’s only half of the story.

As Tim DeChristopher was being sentenced to prison for non-violent civil disobedience, activists around the country didn’t cower in fear. Thousands protested the creation of the Keystone XL pipeline, and hundreds were arrested saying, “now it’s our turn.” And as new FBI documents reveal that the government has considered terrorism prosecutions against non-violent undercover investigators, activists have hit back with a lawsuit calling the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act unconstitutional.

In other words, the second trend is that resistance is growing.

What’s in store for 2012? The Occupy Wall Street movement has gone from a few dozen tents to a national movement in about 100 days. As more and more people recognize that they are part of the “99 percent,” and act accordingly, Occupy will undoubtedly attract a proportionate backlash from same “one percent” who have targeted animal rights and environmental activists for decades.

There are significant challenges ahead for all of us. It’s hard to know what is the best way to take action, or how we should proceed. But I think Woody Guthrie was on to something with his New Year’s resolution list from 1942.

Two of the items on his list for the new year: “Make up your mind… Wake up and fight.”

Did you miss some of these stories this year? Be sure to sign up for the free email newsletter. You can also follow Green Is the New Red on Facebook and Twitter.

This recent investigation of a McDonald's egg supplier is an example of the type of activism the FBI calls terrorism.

The FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force has kept files on activists who expose animal welfare abuses on factory farms and recommended prosecuting them as terrorists, according to a new document uncovered through the Freedom of Information Act.

This new information comes as the Center for Constitutional Rights has filed a lawsuit challenging the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) as unconstitutional because its vague wording has had a chilling effect on political activism. This document adds to the evidence demonstrating that the AETA goes far beyond property destruction, as its supporters claim.

The 2003 FBI file details the work of several animal rights activists who used undercover investigation to document repeated animal welfare violations. The FBI special agent who authored the report said they “illegally entered buildings owned by [redacted] Farm… and videotaped conditions of animals.”

The animal activists caused “economic loss” to businesses, the FBI says. And they also openly rescued several animals from the abusive conditions. This was not done covertly in the style of underground groups like the Animal Liberation Front — it was an act of non-violent civil disobedience and, as the FBI agent notes, the activists distributed press releases and conducted media interviews taking responsibility for their actions.

Based on these acts — trespassing in order to photograph and videotape abuses on factory farms — the agent concludes there “is a reasonable indication” that the activists “have violated the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, 18 USC Section 43 (a).”

Click here to view the FBI document.

The file was uncovered through a FOIA request by Ryan Shapiro, who is one of the activists mentioned. The file is available for download here. [Please note that this document has additional redactions in order to protect the identities of the other activists, at their request.] Shapiro is now a doctoral candidate at MIT.

“It is deeply sobering to see one’s name in an FBI file proposing terrorism charges,” he said in an email. “It is even more sobering to realize the supposedly terroristic activities in question are merely exposing the horrific cruelty of factory farms, educating the public about what goes on behind those closed doors, and openly rescuing a few animals from one of those farms as an act of civil disobedience.”

When I testified before Congress against the AETA in 2006, one of the primary concerns I raised is that the law could be used to wrap up a wide range of activity that threatens corporate profits. Supporters of the AETA have repeatedly denied this, and said the law will only be used against people who do things like burn buildings.

So how do we explain that such a sweeping prosecution was being considered in 2003, under the law’s somewhat-narrower precursor?

One possibility is that FBI agents lack training, education, and oversight. They are spying on political activists without understanding or respecting the law.

Another explanation is that this document is no mistake, nor is it an isolated case. It is a reflection of a coordinated campaign to target animal rights activists who, as the FBI agent notes, cause “economic loss” to corporations.

Learn the full story of how corporations are targeting activists as "terrorists."

At the state, federal, and international levels, corporations have orchestrated an attempt to silence political activists, and a key target has been undercover investigators. For example:

• An “Ag Gag” bill has been introduced in Florida to criminalize investigations. Its lead sponsor calls these investigations “terrorism.” Four similar attempts failed in other states this year.
• These state bills are similar to model “eco-terrorism” legislation drafted by the American Legislative Exchange Council, a corporate front group.
• A recent EUROPOL report on international terrorism includes a section on undercover investigations by animal rights and environmental activists.
• 12 Spanish activists have been charged with terrorism for their investigations.
• Two activists in Finland faced similar charges.

The FBI makes clear that the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act is not about protecting public safety; it is about protecting corporate profits. Corporations and the politicians who represent them have repeatedly lied to the American public about the scope of this legislation, and claimed that the law only targets underground groups like the Animal Liberation Front. The truth is that this terrorism law has been slowly, methodically expanded to include the tactics of national organizations like the Humane Society of the United States.

This document illustrates how the backlash against effective activism has progressed within the animal rights movement. However, if this type of legislation is not overturned, it will set a precedent for corporations to use this model against Occupy Wall Street and anyone else who threaten business as usual.